1. petensfo says

    The hubris of politicians never fails to astound me… that’s lovely that she chose not to be married, but she overlooks that she at least had the option.

    How on earth she justifies treating other people equally under law is beyond me.

  2. michael says

    her voice still makes me cringe…

    That poor boy – he asked a serious question and she laughs at him.

    The conscience vote is rubbish. Our representatives should be voting in line with their constituents beliefs NOT what their conscience tells them.

  3. Sargon Bighorn says

    “marriage could play its traditional role”? What is that role? Not raising kids, single people do that all the time. Having “the little woman” stay at home and house keep? Nah women are more than maids. What is the “traditional role” of marriage?

  4. mike says

    Pookie, the last poll I saw prior to the recent election showed that marriage equality was in the mid to high 60’s amongst Aussies. Much like the US it boils down to intensity- those against marriage equality are a loud minority and the majority in favour aren’t willing to pressure their MP’s; it’s not sustainable and Oz will join the Kiwis sooner rather than later.

  5. Greg in Oz says

    Personally, I can’t believe she had the gall to say what she did.
    I admit that while I personally agree that marriage is not something that I would probably do when it does become legal down here (and it will – just a matter of time – and further to that, sooner rather than later I reckon), but what gets up my left nostril about her comments is the fact that she is basically saying that ‘I don’t like marriage, so why would anyone else?’. Stupid logic.
    It’s not about marriage per se – it’s about equality. One of the major and basic platforms of the Labor party in this country that she blithely betrayed without any thought. Again, although I am certainly no fan of the newly elected regime in this country (God help us, but sometimes our conservatives can out-flank the tea party!), she totally ignored one of the major founding principles of her own party in deciding to not support marriage equality in Parliament. Like others, I feel it was purely motivated by trying to hang on to the Xtian vote – the Labor party is heavily in bed with the Catholic Church in this country – more is the pity!

  6. Jay says

    If I were an Australian of any persuasion, I would be deeply disturbed by how this woman arrives to her decisions. Her answer is lackluster and selfish. I can only imagine how many other issues she considered with the same apathy and poor performance.

    Love is love. And her comfort is not my concern.

  7. Greg in Oz says

    @ Manny,
    Basically, yes. She has never supported SSM, but at the last election, she was outed to be replaced by Kevin Rudd a few months prior to it being called (Kevin Rudd Mark II, I should add – Julia had knifed him in the back 3 years prior to that and got the party to dump him when he was the PM the first time around. In other words, she got her just desserts).
    They then lost the recent election but there was no way the Labor party were going to win. They had wasted the last 3 years in Government in-fighting – so the public got sick of them and gave them the boot.
    Unfortunately, the replacement PM – the Mad Monk (his name – Abbott – and Catholic-based political bent make this moniker particularly apt) – is only going to make matters worse.
    One thing Julia did do that was right though, was to allow the members of her party to vote on ‘Conscience Lines’ for SSM – which means you have the right to vote on an issue using your own free will and are not obligated to tow the party line.
    The question everyone is waiting to see here now is whether the Liberal Party (confusing name for some of you in the States I know, as this is our conservatives, despite their name) will also allow a conscience vote as well – the last time a vote was held on SSM, they didn’t. Again though, it is doubtful whether it would have passed at that stage as there were not enough MPs in the previous Parliament to support it anyway.
    This time around though there are more supporters there, so it’s a wait and see game.

  8. Ken says

    Some people are saying she opposed marriage equality for political reasons. But a majority of Australians and members of her own party support same sex marriage, so her position actually seemed to hurt her politically. I think she is just flat out an anti gay bigot. There is no political motive at all.

  9. Greg in Oz says

    Well, considering she is a self-confessed atheist and lives in a de-facto relationship, here stance on gay marriage was always confusing.
    I think that you assertion about her bigotry is about the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from her stance, but don’t agree that there wasn’t some political motivation feeding into it. Like most politicians, she can be frightened by her own shadow and is too gutless to move on an issue in fear of some sort of public backlash.
    Although it has been shown many times, both here and in the USA, that public opinion supports SSM, pollies are always behind the times.

  10. Keppler says

    How nice that she had the opportunity to decide whether or not to marry. Would that she had afforded that opportunity to those of us less fortunate.

  11. Clo says

    Trampee: I got the idea from a guy I saw walking a pig on Montana. I obviously struck a raw nerve with you, but I would guess you’re all raw nerves. Lucky guy who gets you.

  12. gr8guyca says

    Her answer took a surprising turn. I thought – as she described the most traditional type of marriage imagery – that she was going to conclude that marriage is an evolving institution. What marriage means to one generation is not the same to the next generation. Therefore…..SSM is an evolution that she would support.

    Instead, she went to her own example; she doesn’t want a marriage, so others don’t need/want one either. That’s ridiculous…and illogical.

  13. Just a guy says

    “I have a valuable lifetime commitment and haven’t felt the need at any point to make that into a marriage.”

    That’s a bit like: “Well, I can walk and I’ve never needed a wheelchair. So we will have no wheelchairs in Australia, because they’re not necessary.”

    What a short-sighted, selfish, dreadful c*nt.

  14. Gigi says

    @CLOSET — re: “I have a pet pig that I love. Love is love.”

    Of course you can marry your pig, who Jerome. He’s an “ex-gay” man currently IN your closet with a geek-ball in his mouth and a fist-shaped butt plug shoved up his rectum. You can marry him, but I’d suggest you get him out of his Pig/Slave gear before you head down to the registry office. You don’t want to be the cause of a car crash.

  15. Rowan says

    “Trampee: I got the idea from a guy I saw walking a pig on Montana. I obviously struck a raw nerve with you, but I would guess you’re all raw nerves. Lucky guy who gets you.

    POSTED BY: CLO | OCT 1, 2013 1:37:08 AM”

    WTF Closet?? Hahaha, that makes no sense! You got served! And you reply with a bizarre comment calling Tamp full of nerves!?? LMAO!

    I might use that whenever anyone serves me when I come out with a stupid, ignorant and nonsensical comment to an argument I don’t like. ‘You’re full of raw nerves!”

  16. Darrell says

    A Politician is supposed to follow the wants of the electorate. Not just their own personal beliefs. Australia is democracy not a dictatorship. But obviously their politicians are decades behind Australia’s “brother/sister” Commonwealth countries Canada and their closest geographic sibling New Zealand.

Leave A Reply